Marco Rubio: I have “concerns” about Arizona’s immigration law

posted at 4:14 pm on April 27, 2010 by Allahpundit

What’s that murmur I hear suddenly rippling through the throngs of America’s grassroots conservatives? Listen closely. It almost sounds like … “Second look at Crist.”

No no, just kidding. I’m amused by the punditocracy’s oohing and aahing over how deft Rubio’s statement is, because, really, what else could he say? Obviously he’s going to take a strong line on border enforcement to please tea partiers, and obviously he’s going to worry about the law being used to harass Latino citizens. Any conscientious politician — especially one facing a statewide race where the Cuban vote will be a factor — would do the same. And look: Potential civil rights abuses are a legit concern with the new law. I’ve written two posts explaining why I think those fears are overblown (see Byron York’s piece today in the Examiner arguing along the same lines), but it could be that I’m misreading it or that cops will apply it more broadly than intended. If so, and Latino citizens end up being mistakenly hauled in, that’s a big deal.

The one truly deft aspect of this statement? Framing the law as a potential problem not just for Latinos, but for law enforcement too.

Our legal immigration system must continue to welcome those who seek to embrace America’s blessings and abide by the legal and orderly system that is in place. The American people have every right to expect the federal government to secure our borders and prevent illegal immigration. It has become all too easy for some in Washington to ignore the desperation and urgency of those like the citizens of Arizona who are disproportionately wrestling with this problem as well as the violence, drug trafficking and lawlessness that spills over from across the border.

States certainly have the right to enact policies to protect their citizens, but Arizona’s policy shows the difficulty and limitations of states trying to act piecemeal to solve what is a serious federal problem. From what I have read in news reports, I do have concerns about this legislation. While I don’t believe Arizona’s policy was based on anything other than trying to get a handle on our broken borders, I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.

I hope Congress and the Obama Administration will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation, but to finally act on border states’ requests for help with security and fix the things about our immigration system that can be fixed right now – securing the border, reforming the visa and entry process, and cracking down on employers who exploit illegal immigrants.

Outside of maybe Jim DeMint, you’re not going to find any prominent Republican pushing a line much stronger than this. It’s simply too risky to take an unqualified “rock on, Arizona!” approach given the prospect of some sort of civil-rights clusterfark happening once it goes into effect. Just as I’m writing this, I see that Jeb Bush has weighed in against the statute, and as of this morning, Grahamnesty declared it flatly unconstitutional (without giving any reasons, natch). Even Tancredo has “concerns.” Rubio’s statement, which emphasizes the statute’s potential for abuse without ever declaring it illegal or calling for its repeal, is a comparative model of restraint.

One other point from his statement. The line about not giving the state an inch lest it take a mile is clever insofar as it marries criticism of the statute to tea-party concerns about small government. Eugene Robinson used the same argument in his op-ed today declaring the new law racist, hateful, blah blah blah. I don’t follow the logic, though. As far as I know, most tea partiers are hawkish (the Paulnut contingent excluded); a strong military necessarily means bigger government, but my hunch is that TPers are okay with that since national defense is what the federal government is for. Same with border defense. As I pointed out once before, tea partiers don’t mind paying taxes — a majority of them say their current tax burden is fair — but they want their tax money put to good use, and I dare say that border enforcement qualifies. Exit question for Rubio: Should we scale military spending way back on grounds that “when government is given an inch it takes a mile”? (Exit answer from Ron Paul: Yes!)

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Comments

For one thing, as time goes on and he learns more about the law he might well change his mind.

Terrye

Then maybe he should refrain from commenting on something he knows nothing about.

Oh for heavens sakes, all he said was that he had concerns

Terrye

Concerns about a law he hasn’t even read. Why? Because Democrats, the lame stream media, and Al Sharpton convinced him he should have concerns. Great. Just what we need, yet another Republican turning to Democrats for guidance.

Rubio: …I think aspects of the law, especially that dealing with ‘reasonable suspicion,’ are going to put our law enforcement officers in an incredibly difficult position. It could also unreasonably single out people who are here legally, including many American citizens. Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.

Oh, quit whining, Rubio; you’ve just damaged your credibility. Wherever we turn, there’s another putative righty tapping the brakes on basic law enforcement and siding with leftists. Vapid legal objections and dark insinuations — anything to keep from actually doing something about the problem. This law doesn’t put cops in a difficult position; phony politicians and lawyers do that.

I see that Jeb Bush has weighed in against the statute, and as of this morning, Grahamnesty declared it flatly unconstitutional (without giving any reasons, natch). Even Tancredo has “concerns.”

Better to have more American citizens terrorized and murdered, right Bush?

If he was any kind of a man he would say that the governments of Mexico, Central and South America need to examine themselves and admit they have a problem whereby the social safety net is not sufficient to keep their people from becoming refugees in North America. He ought to complain bitterly that if not for the huge injustices of the political systems in Mexico, Central and South America this crisis would not exist. He would argue it’s patently unfair for these governments to allow the offloading of their indigent populations into North America. As a North American I seethe at the rich south of the border for their corrupt and utterly repressive ways.

And the Caribbean and well just about the entire Latin world. Why do they do such a shit job of caring for the helpless? Why do they do such a lousy job of creating opportunity? Why do they allowed to get away with their racket of shoving the problem north?

This law doesn’t put cops in a difficult position; phony politicians and lawyers do that.

You make his the other person’s point well. What power do they have other than to pile on bad-law?

That is the point, politicians/lawyers have made life more difficult for LEO, city workers, fire depts, utility workers, neighbors, etc. Many, many day-to-day interactions will be affected by this law. The underground economy just got a huge shot in the arm with this law.

It might be instructive to examine the Dominican Republic versus Haiti — same island.

First world debt peddlers and corporatists have a mixed record. Most of time, these countries cause their own problems, but NAFTA destroyed the peasant farmer in Mexico. Allowing Mexico’s ruling-class to dump its people on us isn’t helping Mexico.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with racial profiling. If a fat black guy robs a bank, focusing on skinny white guys is totally stupid. Wake up.

Angry white guy pissed at the governemnt murders 168 people with a bomb; it makes sense the feds should keep their eyes on other angry white dudes pissed at govt.

Right?

Grow Fins on April 27, 2010 at 7:43 PM

Absolutely. As a caveat, I would point out that the ‘angry white guy’ to whom you refer had more cannections than one co-conspirator. But following all the leads might have interfered with the political spin the gubmint wanted to have.

Yeah, and when you look at leftism, it has AIDS-like qualities. Look what the left attacks — the immune killer cells that protect society: police and military. Look at what the left helps — the disease organisms: criminals and anti-Western cultural plagues.

Sanctuary cities abound in the southwest. San Francisco, San Diego and Los Angeles are sanctuaries of illegal ALIENS, not immigrants. If you live in a sanctuary city, the police are prohibited from questioning your right to be this country if you commit any type of crime. They defer to ICE to check their status, place them on immigration hold and deport them, if necessary.

Arizona is protecting their citizens by allowing the police to intervene in questioning the person’s legal status in this country.

If crr6 and growfins want to call this racist or xenophobic or a violation of civil rights, please refer to the Bologna case in the sanctuary city of San Fran, Pelosi Galore’s constituency.

Talk to me about illegal aliens. I worked with them for over 8 years in the agricultural business. The basic thread of most of my conversations with them is they want what you have. Now the game is up and they can no longer take what you have without consequence and they are whining.

We have become of nation of misplaced sympathy. Why should I care about Jose and Maria’s state of mind, or their fear of deportation, or the possibility they will be racially profiled, and whether their feelings are going to be hurt because we want to protect our own citizens and uphold our laws? They broke the law, they broke into someone else’s home, they circumvented the system, they stole identities, purchased bogus SSNs, illegally enrolled on the welfare and food stamp rolls, are eligible for Section 8 housing, etc. They don’t assimilate because they do not want to. They want their culture and our money.

Where is the sympathy on the left for the recently murdered consulate employee and her husband? Where is the sympathy for Robert Krentz and the Bolognas? There isn’t any sympathy or concern on the left. crr6 and growfins have no heart. They live in a fantasy world and make hit and run arguments for the sake of hearing their own voice. It is redundant and insipid.

Please present an argument why it is okay for them to break the law and not for me to break the law. Anyone? Bueller?

Well stated. No one says it better than someone who’s been there. You are right about the lack of sympathy on the left. The dull fact is they don’t care, any more than they care about the mountain of corpses and wrecked lives of the innocent since they loosed street criminals on the public in the ’60s. All they know is their hatred of success and Western Civilization.

I hope Congress and the Obama Administration will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation, but to finally act on border states’ requests for help with security and fix the things about our immigration system that can be fixed right now – securing the border, reforming the visa and entry process, and cracking down on employers who exploit illegal immigrants.

I hope Congress and the Obama Administration will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation, but to finally act on border states’ requests for help with security and fix the things about our immigration system that can be fixed right now – securing the border, reforming the visa and entry process, and cracking down on employers who exploit illegal immigrants.

Note that all amnesty advocates now refuse to identify their goal as amnesty but use these long-winded, hugely wordy explanations of all this, all that, throw in the kitchen sink, this, that, BUT NEVER SUPPORT DEPORTATION OF ILLEGAL ALIENS FROM THE U.S.

That’s amnesty. The supporters of such go to great lengths to declare how they support a strong U.S. border, security, this, that, kitchen sink, but stop short of saying “yes” when asked if illegal aliens should be deported (suffer the reasonable penalty for their crime/s).

I’m extremely disappointed in Rubio’s attempts to workaround making a clear statement here in regards this very important issue.

It seems he’s, unfortunately, now also “race” baiting or cowtowing to the ethnicity “customizations” of just applying the law evenly. That means, I think he’s showing undue influence BY ethnic-assocations.

Rubio is right. His statement demonstrates both common sense and courage. Note that he makes a CONSERVATIVE argument. Which isn´t the same thing as cheap and ineffective right-wing populism.

Throughout American history and throughout this administration we have seen that when government is given an inch it takes a mile.

Yes. Isn´t it funny how the right suddenly screams for more ill-defined powers for the government?

I hope Congress and the Obama Administration will use the Arizona legislation not as an excuse to try and jam through amnesty legislation, but to finally act on border states’ requests for help with security and fix the things about our immigration system that can be fixed right now – securing the border, reforming the visa and entry process, and cracking down on employers who exploit illegal immigrants.